40th and Pine Streets, Philadelphia

Challenge to Penn's Hardship Claim

Intro:When demolition of the house was proposed for the purpose of creating a 120 unit apartment building,
this was a red flag.
Demolition of Philadelphia Certified Historic Properties is not
permitted except in special circumstances. One of these special
circumstances is a hardship where the owner is going to be
substantially harmed and there are no alternatives in the market
place. So, in a neighborhood full of occupied old houses, the
claim that an apartment building was the only viable use for the
property flew in the face of common sense. Take a look around the neighborhood...

View from Baltimore
Avenue. Late 19th-century twins fit the local pattern of
development.

North side of the 4000 block of Pine Street.

Neighboring
houses on the South side of Pine Street that are also part of the Hamilton
Family Estate National Register District.

Summary of the case against a hardship demolition:
Penn's 'hardship' at 400 S. 40th Street is being
challenged on the following grounds:

The
continued use of the surrounding properties, which are
similar in scale and zoning, contradict Penn's claim that there is no
market or viable use for the house.

The owner limited the market by considering only large scale projects and the use an
outside developers and investors.

Proposals to use the
property in a manner that essentially complied with the existing zoning
and historic
designation were ignored.

A hardship should not be based on the
need of a developer to offer his investors an 11% cash on cash return.

The Historical Commission clearly erred because the law requires an
owner to make a good faith attempt to sell, rent, and find other uses.

Penn could sell the property, but has chosen not to. If sold for less than purchase price, that is the risk of the marketplace. That alone is not a hardship.

Requirements for non-profits to show hardship include showing
that the sale, continuing
ownership, or reuse of the mansion would substantially harm their
mission. Penn and its subsidiary, OAP Inc., have not offered any
such evidence.

Penn's head of real estate development admits OAP paid a
premium for the property and that the University has already benefited
from the purchase.

'The Community' does not favor demolition in exchange for this
proposed five story apartment building. That is not an exchange, nor was it
agreed to.

Background:In
2003 the University of Pennsylvania's subsidiary, OAP Inc.,
purchased the
property. The property has been minimally maintained ever since. In
2007, a developer selected by OAP attempted to decertify the property
for the purpose of building a high rise hotel. When decertification
failed, they tried to
save
the project by incorporating the house. This admittedly creative
scheme
involved reworking the high rise as 'an addition'.
Finally, in 2009 Penn withdrew its support for the project, seemingly
to avoid decisions by the ZBA and L & I Review Board in favor of
the Pine Street and Woodland Terrace neighbors.

But in 2011, a seven-story apartment scheme was unveiled. Initially this one was also an 'addition' to the house. It managed to
squeak out a non-binding 'concept approval' from the Historical
Commission. However, this new project found
not even a token of support in the surrounding community. Unfortunately, Penn
did not recognize that one of the core problems was the attempt to rezone to high density. So in
an attempt to address simply the height issue, Penn now claims to have met
the community's objections by sacrificing the mansion for a shorter,
squatter version of the same project. We are not impressed.